Print Page | Close Window

The Dumbest Movie Idea EVER?!?

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 30th RAZZIES Choices
Forum Name: G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA
Forum Discription: "Winner" of 1 RAZZIE® for WORST SUPPORTING ACTRESS (Sienna Miller)
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3741
Printed Date: July 30 2014 at 4:17am


Topic: The Dumbest Movie Idea EVER?!?
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: The Dumbest Movie Idea EVER?!?
Date Posted: July 10 2009 at 6:08am

AT the END of OUR http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3485&PN=1&TPN=1 - 29th ANNUAL RAZZIE http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3485&PN=1&TPN=1 - ® http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3485&PN=1&TPN=1 - CEREMONIES , WE SHOWED IMAGES of SEVERAL 2009 TITLES WE PRESUMED WOULD BE CONTENDERS for OUR http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=876&PN=1&TPN=1 - 30th ANNUAL DIS-HONORS -- FEW GOT a BIGGER REPONSE THAN a http://www.impawards.com/2009/g_i_joe_ver5.html - POSTER for http://www.gijoemovie.com/ - G.I. JOE , a MOVIE BASED on a 45-YEAR-OLD DOLL (SORRY, ACTION FIGURE) MADE for BOYS...

BUT DUMB MOVIE IDEAS CAN STILL BE MARKETED -- AS PROOF, HERE's a http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/07/09/gi-joe-the-rise-of-cobra-toyage-descends-on-mtv-news/ - LINK to an MTV MOVIE BLOG ITEM ABOUT TOYS and MERCHANDISING RELATED to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046173/ - G.I. JOE .

BEFORE IT OPENED in AUGUST, WE HAD to SATISFY OURSELVES with BASHING the BERRY IDEA of MAKING SUCH a BLATANT (AND LITERAL) "9-YEAR-OLD BOY MOVIE." 

BUT ONCE IT DID COME OUT, and PROVED to BE JUST AS DOOFY AS IT LOOKED, WE FIGURE IT'S ONE of 2009's MOST "SURE-FIRE" WORST PICTURE CONTENDERS...

COMING SOON to a 99-CENTS ONLY STORE NEAR YOU...??



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: JoBloMovieGoer
Date Posted: July 10 2009 at 6:36am

I was there in the hall when the montage of 2009 movies came up, and only Lindsay Lohan in "Labor Pains" (which is now going direct-to-cable) got a bigger response than "G.I. Joe."

Here's a link to see the exact poster shown on Razzie show night:

   http://www.impawards.com/2009/g_i_joe_ver5.html - http://www.impawards.com/2009/g_i_joe_ver5.html  

And a link to see the current trailer for the movie... 

   http://mftm.blogspot.com/2009/05/gi-joe-rise-of-cobra-2009-trailer.html - http://mftm.blogspot.com/2009/05/gi-joe-rise-of-cobra-2009-t railer.html  

 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 10 2009 at 8:32am

Well, at least this movie looks to solve the age old dilemmas:
1) What is the government's association with GI Joe?
2) And why don't GI Joe's have cybernetic suits that give them superpowers.
3) And finally, Ok, great, we got the live action GI Joe movie out of the way, when does production start on the live action Thundercats?

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Oh, God -- Please don't give Hollywood any more bad movie ideas...these daze, they might actually make them!



-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 10 2009 at 11:13am

Much like last year when "Ironman" held the title of Best Comic Movie for two months until "The Dark Knight" swooped in and took the title away, within two months, "GI Joe" will swoop in and steal the title of Worst '80s Cartoon Movie away from "Transformers 2".

Seriously, why bother calling them "GI Joe", why not call them "The Poor Man's Ironman Army" if you're going to have them wearing mech suits?

PS: If H-Wood makes a "Turbo Teen" movie (it's about a teenager who is fused with his car by an atom smasher device, so he morphs into his car everytime he becomes overheated and turns back when he cools off) I may give up on movies all together!

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 7:56am

I consider myself much like a "Terror Czar" under the Bush administration - trying to think up all of the worst possible ideas imaginable, before the enemy can turn them against us...  

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Well, at least this movie looks to solve the age old dilemmas: 1) What is the government's association with GI Joe? 2) And why don't GI Joe's have cybernetic suits that give them superpowers. 3) And finally, Ok, great, we got the live action GI Joe movie out of the way, when does production start on the live action Thundercats?

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Oh, God -- Please don't give Hollywood any more bad movie ideas...these daze, they might actually make them!





-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 8:00am

Haha... I remember Turbo Teen!   

Anyone else out there remember M.A.S.K? I could see them trying to make that into a movie! That show really didn't stand the test of time, though. I remember watching a tape my friend had when I was like 17-18 (as opposed to the 10 or so I was when it was on). It was pretty horrible! The little "GI Joe" message rip off thing at the end was, "Don't pet strange dogs." 



-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 11:39am
I remember the cartoon had cool opening song, which you can view on YouTube...  

-------------


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 12:14pm
Which one, tomsmo?

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 3:30pm
I'm willing to bet money that at one point, someone, somewhere, is going to say "Now you know ... and knowing is half the battle".


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: July 11 2009 at 5:07pm
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Which one, tomsmo?
The Gi Joe Cartoon


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 9:18am
Originally posted by Michaels

I'm willing to bet money that at one point, someone,
somewhere, is going to say "Now you know ... and knowing is half the
battle".


And it'll be as awkward as "My name is Mr. Frieze. Remember it well, for
is the chilling sound of your doom!"

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 5:11pm

Originally posted by dEd Grimley


And it'll be as awkward as "My name is Mr. Frieze. Remember it well, for is the chilling sound of your doom!"

Or ANY spoken line of dialog from "Batman & Robin" for that matter.



Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 3:13am
Wow, G.I. Joe must be bad enough to get a forum this early. I'd be concerned about the E.T. knockoff Aliens in the Attic or any movie coming out on July 24 (including Diz-knee's G-Force).

I don't see any proof that G.I. Joe has the looks of a bad movie. There's a nice little joke by-play between Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans, who - according to reports - was cast based on his physical performance from Requiem for a Dream) in a TV spot, the CGI doesn't look bad, Dennis Quaid's a reliable actor in any movie, and Sienna Miller looks like the Baroness. Okay, the action didn't blow me away, but I know a bad film when I see it (anything from Uwe Boll, the Disney factory, Lionsgate, etc.).

I'm aware of Stephen Sommer's Van Helsing, and what a bad movie that was, but this doesn't reek of Van Helsing obviousness. Of course, there are some bad signs: the Wayans Bros. are a juicy target, toys made from movies are disasters (Bratz, anyone?), Dennis Quaid is stuck in a cast lead by a majority of actors of a lower celebrity (including Tatum), and squeaky-voiced Joseph Gordon Levitt playing Cobra Commando. But hey, it's going to kick the crap out of Bandslam when it comes out.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 12:07pm
Marlon Wayans has talent. He just doesn't tend to act in movies that require it.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 5:17pm

True, but one of the few exceptions (if not the ONLY one) is "Requiem for a Dream".

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 9:19am
I wanna see Roland Emmerich remake Requiem for a Dream.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 9:32am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Haha... I remember Turbo Teen!   

Anyone else out there remember M.A.S.K? I could see them trying to make that into a movie! That show really didn't stand the test of time, though. I remember watching a tape my friend had when I was like 17-18 (as opposed to the 10 or so I was when it was on). It was pretty horrible! The little "GI Joe" message rip off thing at the end was, "Don't pet strange dogs." 

Have you watched Robot Chicken?  That show has poked fun at all three of those cartoons!

Anyway, you say that this will easily be the worst of the cartoon based movies.  You say it will be worse than DragginBall De-Evolution and worse than the upcoming CGI AstroBoy (BTW, Dr. Tenma, creator of AstroBoy, is voiced by Nicholas Cage).  I wonder about the latter...

I guess we could create a special category for worst cartoon based film.  The nominees could be DragginBall De-Evolution, G. I. NO, AstroPloy, Transmorfers 2, and Blood: The Worst Vampire.



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 9:39am
I'd like to see Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich in a showdown of who can direct the worst CGI driven, 2 and 1/2 hour long music video of a movie. Oh wait, we're getting that this year with "Transformers 2" and "2012". Both are pretty much setting themselves up for Worst Picture/Director.


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 9:42am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Haha... I remember Turbo Teen!   

Anyone else out there remember M.A.S.K?

I remember those two cartoons, and I once had M.A.S.K. pajamas as a little kid!  Also, are you aware that Robot Chicken made sketches based on those?

As for the claim that G.I. Joe will be the worst cartoon based movie...You say it will be worse than Dragginball De-evolution, huh?  What about the upcoming CGI Astroboy (with Dr. Tenma, Astroboy's creator, voiced by Nicholas Cage)?  I wonder about the latter.

These three films, plus Transformers 2 and Blood: TLV, are enough to create a Razzie category for Worst Cartoon Based Movie.



-------------


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 1:03am
The thing that Emmerich has over every other director is that you find yourself begging for the movies' events to come true before the movie itself finishes.
And yes, I've seen the Robot Chicken sketches. And yes, there is plenty of room for a "Worst Movie Based on a TV show from the 60's-80's"

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 2:59am

Also keep in mind that "Street Fighter" has been an anime series and has had a couple anime movies as well, so "Chung-Li" can be added to that Worst Live Action Movie Based On A Cartoon catagory, too.

Nic Cage aside, at least the one thing the producers got right about "Astroboy" is keeping the movie animated. That and putting a shirt on him. Seriously, what's more embrassing than being saved by a half naked little robot boy?



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 4:53am
Street Fighter is almost public domain, at this point.

As for Astroboy, that'll probably do about as well as the cartoon resonates with today's youth.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 21 2009 at 8:32am
Cool. This film has been generating some positive reactions from early prescreenings. Seeing how I liked the trailer, I'm quite excited for the movie now:

* http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41702 - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41702
* http://www.latinoreview.com/news/readers-review-g-i-joe-the-rise-of-cobra-7397 - http://www.latinoreview.com/news/readers-review-g-i-joe-the- rise-of-cobra-7397
* http://www.collider.com/2009/07/15/steve-has-seen-director-stephen-sommers-gijoe-the-rise-of-cobra-and-says-its-the-cartoon-come-to-life/ - http://www.collider.com/2009/07/15/steve-has-seen-director-s tephen-sommers-gijoe-the-rise-of-cobra-and-says-its-the-cart oon-come-to-life/


Posted By: Headbanger14
Date Posted: July 29 2009 at 11:38am
I don't know, whenever I see a movie where they show a World monument getting blown up, I know immediately that the movie's gonna suck. Same goes with Independence Day and even Mars Attacks! I actually hated...


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 29 2009 at 2:01pm

Originally posted by Headbanger14

I don't know, whenever I see a movie where they show a World monument getting blown up, I know immediately that the movie's gonna suck. Same goes with Independence Day and even Mars Attacks! I actually hated...

Yeah, you would think if there was an attack on the world's leadership, shouldn't the villains go straight for the world leaders and major goverment buildings rather than wasting their time going after tourist trips.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 30 2009 at 12:40am
It's another one of those psychological and emotional appeals - go after something everyone already knows. It's how Seltzerberg got by as long as they did, it's how stupid video game parodies that float around the net get by, it's how the equally hack-y Roland Emmerich, Michael Bay, and Mummyguys of the world get by. I think we need to start teaching our children to protest math for introducing the concept of the lowest common denominator.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 30 2009 at 9:58am
Just saw "Blood: The Last Vampire". Run of the mill vampire movie, but at least it wasn't insultingly stupid like "Drag-on Balls" and "Failed Star Vechile For Chung-Li".


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 30 2009 at 10:43am
Originally posted by Michaels

Just saw "Blood: The Last Vampire". Run of the mill vampire movie, but at least it wasn't insultingly stupid like "Drag-on Balls" and "Failed Star Vechile For Chung-Li".

If you have the time to see that vampire movie, I'm sure you will have time to watch ORPHAN.


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: July 30 2009 at 12:53pm
Apparently, CHUD is praising G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra as well, and they too are saying that it's better than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

Somehow I think I've been suckered into seeing Transformers 2. I mean, I listened to the soundtrack and the score by Steve Jablonsky, and not once was I convinced that I was seeing a bad movie. I can live with the technical quibbles, but the criticisms at focal point are rather immature (How many times are we gonna hear how hot Megan Fox is and how she can't act for sh*t? MOVE ALONG!) or something I didn't notice until now (I never got the feeling that Skids and Mudflap were stereotypical black caricatures; the movie seemed to have moved at a solid-enough pace, not like Watchmen).

But anyway, here's the review: http://chud.com/articles/articles/20306/1/REVIEW-GI-JOE---THE-RISE-OF-COBRA/Page1.html - http://chud.com/articles/articles/20306/1/REVIEW-GI-JOE---TH E-RISE-OF-COBRA/Page1.html


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 30 2009 at 4:29pm
Every commercial I've seen for GI Joe makes me wonder what might possibly want to see that more than renting the original cartoon movie version. A lot of video stores rent kids' movies for free. I know I've gotten GI Joe for free before.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 31 2009 at 2:48am

Originally posted by moviewizguy


If you have the time to see that vampire movie, I'm sure you will have time to watch ORPHAN.

In theory, if you have time to watch a 90 minute movie, you have time to watch ANY 90 minute movie. The question is do I WANT to watch "Orphan"? The answer being "OH HELL'S NO"! I could always watch "The Omen" if I ever need my demonic child fix, but then again, I did need a demonic child fix ... ever.

As for the four good reviews "GI Joe" is getting so far, mind you, that's only 4 reviews. Wait for the other 200 reviews to be released and we'll see how well it goes from there.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 31 2009 at 4:03am
Originally posted by Michaels

In theory, if you have time to watch a 90 minute movie, you have time to watch ANY 90 minute movie. The question is do I WANT to watch "Orphan"? The answer being "OH HELL'S NO"! I could always watch "The Omen" if I ever need my demonic child fix, but then again, I did need a demonic child fix ... ever.

As for the four good reviews "GI Joe" is getting so far, mind you, that's only 4 reviews. Wait for the other 200 reviews to be released and we'll see how well it goes from there.


Watch ORPHAN or I'll track you down and force you to watch it "A Clockwork Orange" style!


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 31 2009 at 6:20am
You realize that you've oversold it at this point, and it can't possibly live up to the hype you've set it to?

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 31 2009 at 8:49am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

You realize that you've oversold it at this point, and it can't possibly live up to the hype you've set it to?

Yeah, probably...


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 01 2009 at 2:50am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Watch ORPHAN or I'll track you down and force you to watch it "A Clockwork Orange" style!

Well, gee, since you put it that way, NO.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 01 2009 at 5:27am
80% on RT so far! http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gi_joe/ - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gi_joe/


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 01 2009 at 7:29am
And not a one of the positive reviews up thus far say the movie is actually good.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 01 2009 at 8:21am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

And not a one of the positive reviews up thus far say the movie is actually good.

Positive, nonetheless. 83%!


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 1:12am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

And not a one of the positive reviews up thus far say the movie is actually good.

Positive, nonetheless. 83%!

Yeah, but they are the same backhanded comments as "Trannies 2", in other words "good ... for a brainless action movie based on a cartoon".



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 9:35am
Let's take a look at some of the GI Joe positive reviews' critics and their tastes:

Todd Gilchrist:
-Also enjoyed:
   Transformers 2
   Land of the Lost
   X-Men: Wolverine
   Fast and Furious
   Friday the 13th: Remake

Drew McWeeny (No joke required):
-Also enjoyed:
   I Love You, Beth Cooper
   (Otherwise agrees with the Tomamometer. We'll see if GIJ keeps up 80%)

Jimmy O:
-Disliked:
   Brokeback Mountain
   Bruno
   (Now that makes one wonder...)
   Otherwise, mostly on pace with the rest of RT

Paul Fisher:
-Also liked:
   The House Bunny (No, it's not good because of Anna Faris. Yes, I did try to give it a shot)
   What Happens in Vegas
   Made of Honor
   Saw III
   Accepted
   Agrees with RT about 50% of the time

Devin Faraci:
-Also liked:
   Taking of Pelham 1 2 3
   Land of the Lost
   Fighting

So what have we learned? Some of these critics are mildly credible at least, but some are kind of a joke. We'll see how well this score holds up, but it just seems very unlikely. You might hope to see the 60's, if it's better than we're thinking, but c'mon...
The last time, and only time Mummyguy cracked 60% was on The Jungle Book... 15 years ago. That got a 94%, but that's only got 18 total ratings. Also, he got a perfect goose egg on Gunmen that same year (only 7 votes though.)

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 9:36am

Thundercats live action movie?  Don't give Hollywood any bad movie ideas?  They might make it?

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt1047015/ - Too late.

For even more convincing evidence, http://www.thundercatsho.com/new.html - the Thundercats fan page , dormant for 10 years now, has been completely redone in anticipation of next year's movie.

So, let's take a poll.  Do you want to see Snarf done by a real actor rendered with WETA effects?  Or as a CGI character?  Or as a robot/puppet with special effects?  Or not at all?  Of course, this poll is rhetorical. . . .

Another point - we don't know if this movie will be live action or entirely CGI at this point.  Either way, I suggest a new thread for this upcoming disaster.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Well, at least this movie looks to solve the age old dilemmas:
1) What is the government's association with GI Joe?
2) And why don't GI Joe's have cybernetic suits that give them superpowers.
3) And finally, Ok, great, we got the live action GI Joe movie out of the way, when does production start on the live action Thundercats?

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Oh, God -- Please don't give Hollywood any more bad movie ideas...these daze, they might actually make them!



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 1:53pm
MWG... you're too young to really "get" what Thundercats was... GI Joe stood the test of time a little better, so I might understand if you try to get behind that... But please, stop supporting these movies, and tell your friends. You have no idea what your generation is doing to every fond memory I have, and trust me, I've pretty much hated my life since I was 10, and I'm 28 now. Don't keep ruining my old cartoons... It's really one of the things that keep me going.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 4:02pm

Hollywood has blown Speed Racer, The Care Bears, He-Man, Transformers, Dragonball Z, Scooby-Doo, Pokemon, Underdog, The Chipmunks, Casper, Dudley Do-Right, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Inspector Gadget, Gumby, Josie and the Pussycats, Looney Tunes, Mr. Magoo, The Jetsons and Popeye.  HeadRAZZBerry could almost write a book on the subject of Hollywood taking cartoons and making movies out of them.

I'd struggle to give a pass to The Flintstones, except for the hideous sequel, which makes it easier not to.  Ditto goes for the original campy Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie, ruined by its sequel and its CGI sequel.  That leaves George of the Jungle, and when you're left with trying to prove that George of the Jungle was a good movie, then you might as well plow headlong into "that tree," it would be a whole lot easier.

Coming up, aside from Thundercats (I just read it will be CGI), is Astroboy and Voltron

One could argue that Space Jam is the best adaptation from cartoon to the big screen.  I dunno.  You tell me.

 



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 02 2009 at 7:08pm

I just went through the slate of releases for 2010 listed at Box Office Mojo.  Of course, everything could change.  I could only hope so.  My reaction?  Ugh.  HeadRAZZBerry should consider splitting the remake/ripoff/prequel/sequel award again, because that's what we'll be getting next year.

Anyway, on top of Thundercats, Astroboy and Voltron in the works, toss in Hong Kong Phooey and a 3-D version of The Smurfs.

 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 11:08am
I'm seeing Hong Kong Phooey as a CGI/Reality mix. And horrible.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 11:31am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

MWG... you're too young to really "get" what Thundercats was... GI Joe stood the test of time a little better, so I might understand if you try to get behind that... But please, stop supporting these movies, and tell your friends. You have no idea what your generation is doing to every fond memory I have, and trust me, I've pretty much hated my life since I was 10, and I'm 28 now. Don't keep ruining my old cartoons... It's really one of the things that keep me going.

Oh, no. I won't stop supporting these movies. It's now up 88%! Oh, and I'm sure Hollywood has more to come when raping your childhood...and I mean ALL of it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 12:01pm
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

So what have we learned? Some of these critics are mildly credible at least, but some are kind of a joke. We'll see how well this score holds up, but it just seems very unlikely. You might hope to see the 60's, if it's better than we're thinking, but c'mon...
The last time, and only time Mummyguy cracked 60% was on The Jungle Book... 15 years ago. That got a 94%, but that's only got 18 total ratings. Also, he got a perfect goose egg on Gunmen that same year (only 7 votes though.)

That's ridiculous. People hate critics when they disagree with them and love them when they agree with them. It's the truth. Your post is one example. Maybe one critic who contributed to the 03% of "Meet the Spartans" liked a film many didn't and hated a film many didn't. I could have easily made a list of critics who gave MTS a negative review like you and listed what ratings they gave for other films. That doesn't mean they're not worthy. That means they're human. People never agree everything about each other. It's just life.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 12:37pm
It was essentially meant as a research piece, citing some of the more obscure examples of movies that people seemed to have liked - ones that have been considered Razz worthy. True, I set out to make the movie look bad, but I did so as I went along, and did so intentionally. I gave credit where credit was due.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: August 04 2009 at 3:46am

No go: Paramount won't show critics `G.I. Joe' (AP)

LOS ANGELES - It's the biggest movie of the summer that practically no one has seen.

"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" opens Friday, but Paramount Pictures isn't screening the blockbuster for critics beforehand. Only a select few writers from blogs and movie Web sites have seen it for review — such as Harry Knowles, the self-professed "Head Geek" from Ain't It Cool News — and their opinions have been mostly positive.

Instead, the studio says it's intentionally aiming the movie at the heartland, at cities and audiences outside the entertainment vortexes of New York and Los Angeles. Paramount held a screening Friday for 1,000 military service members and their families at Andrews Air Force Base; it's also focusing marketing efforts in places like Kansas City, Charlotte, N.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

While appealing to a sense of patriotism nationwide, the plan also is inspired by the disparity that existed between the critical trashing " http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800366478/info/ - Transformers : Rise of the Fallen" received and the massive crowds it drew at the box office.

"`G.I. Joe' is a big, fun, summer event movie — one that we've seen audiences enjoy everywhere from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland to Phoenix, Ariz.," said Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures. "After the chasm we experienced with ` http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800366478/info/ - Transformers 2' between the response of audiences and critics, we chose to forgo opening-day print and broadcast reviews as a strategy to promote `G.I. Joe.' We want audiences to define this film."

With a reported production budget of $175 million and a cast that includes http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800015473 - Dennis Quaid , http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1808597021 - Channing Tatum , http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1808454413 - Sienna Miller , Marlon Wayans and http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800018554 - Joseph Gordon-Levitt , "G.I. Joe" follows the adventures of an elite team using high-tech spy and military equipment to take down a corrupt arms dealer. It comes from director Stephen Sommers, whose previous films include "The Mummy" and " http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808406421/info/ - Van Helsing ."

Long before anyone saw the completed product, though, "G.I. Joe" drew mixed buzz at best for its trailer, which premiered during the Super Bowl. Now it's the final action picture of the summer — and it has a lot in common with the highest-grossing film so far this year, the "Transformers" sequel. Both are effects-laden spectacles based on Hasbro toys and both are Paramount releases from producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura.

"Transformers" has gone on to gross more than $388 million in the United States alone since its opening six weeks ago, despite receiving just 20 percent positive reviews on the Web site Rotten Tomatoes, a critical aggregator. The withholding of "G.I. Joe" from mainstream critics suggests that the studios believe they can succeed at the box office without them.

It's a tactic normally reserved for horror movies or other genre pictures with built-in fans who don't necessarily care about reviews — ones based on video games, for example — not summer blockbusters. Still, "G.I. Joe" has been tracking well because it represents the last big bang of the season, said Paul Dergarabedian, box-office analyst for Hollywood.com.

"They don't need (to screen) it and there's no upside to negative reviews. The film is going to open well no matter what," Dergarabedian said. "They're being very strategic in who they show the movie to. If they can win over their core audience from these reviews, that's good for the movie."

Devin Faraci from the film Web site CHUD.com is one of the few writers who have seen it for review purposes, and not just for junket interviews. He's among the critics who've contributed to the movie's 88-percent positive rating as tabulated by Rotten Tomatoes, saying: "If I was 10 years old, `G.I. Joe' would be one of the best movies I had ever seen."

Faraci said he was in Toronto recently when he received a phone call at 8:30 a.m. Los Angeles time, asking if he could come to the Paramount lot that day for a "G.I. Joe" screening. He flew back, got off the plane and headed right over.

"It's silly. It's a film that plays on its own terms," he said. "I don't think reviews will kill it but I think it'll get a more positive response than they expect. It's a big, silly, pulpy, cartoony action film and it makes no apologies for being that way."

credit: yahoomovies.com



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 04 2009 at 6:15am
What I still cannot wrap my head around is why the GI Joes need supercyborg suits, and why that SOMEHOW manages to hold on to the spirit of the cartoon. What made the cartoon good was the personalities of the characters, and the subversive edginess. This movie looks like a-splosions, a-splosions, a-splosions.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 04 2009 at 6:34am
No critic screenings except for unreliable bloggers? Not a good sign. Not a good sign at all.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 04 2009 at 2:36pm

91% at RT! I don't see it going up now, after it reached this high. 

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

What I still cannot wrap my head around is why the GI Joes need supercyborg suits, and why that SOMEHOW manages to hold on to the spirit of the cartoon. What made the cartoon good was the personalities of the characters, and the subversive edginess. This movie looks like a-splosions, a-splosions, a-splosions.



-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 2:04am

MWG, only 11 critics have weighed in with that 91% rating, none of them are among the Rotten Tomatoes top critics.  Only one gave a negative rating, Emmanuel Levy, who often gave good ratings to what most people would consider bad movies.  The current RT rating should not be seriously considered.

 



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 3:07am
I don't really care... 


-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 3:48am

Yeah, we have noticed that. We can explain to you a thousand times how the studios is hand picking these critics knowing they will give the movie good reviews, yet are keeping the serious critics at bay -- and for a reason.

But hey, you've already made up your mind, so by all means, go see the movie and give it your usual 6, 7, or 8 out of 10 review. 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 11:57am
I've stated what I thought about it, so you can go back up and read what I said. I've made my point, and whether or not Paramount is selective among the critics to show them the movie before Friday, it doesn't matter. If these reviewers gave negative reviews for most of the movies listed on this site, you wouldn't be nitpicking right now. For example, Emanuel Levy gave a negative review for "The Color Purple," but it's not as if anyone cared, right? He also gave a positive review for "Angels and Demons," but, like I said, nobody seemed to care.


-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 1:12pm

If you didn't care so much about the Rotten Tomatoes rating, why are you quoting it?  If you're quoting it, why don't you care about who is doing the rating?

Selecting only the facts that are convenient to your argument while ignoring facts that contradict your argument causes people to suspect you are wrong.

 



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 2:43pm

You don't know that those who weren't offered screenings of the movie won't like the movie when they do see it. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, moviewizeguy, there is ample historic precedent for assuming that a movie with-held from general screening for critics will wind up getting mostly negative reviews. Refusing to screen something (and by inferrence forcing critics and/or their employers to pay to see the film and review it) all but begs to be slammed once the critics do see the movie.

It is also a logical assumption that Paramount didn't pursue this strategy with G.I. JOE because they were afraid of getting favorable write-ups...


 



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 5:06pm

As I said, we can explain it to him any number of ways, but he doesn't care. Once he gets behind something he thinks is "good", he'll support until his last dying breath. 

Originally posted by cvcjr13

If you didn't care so much about the Rotten Tomatoes rating, why are you quoting it?  If you're quoting it, why don't you care about who is doing the rating?

Selecting only the facts that are convenient to your argument while ignoring facts that contradict your argument causes people to suspect you are wrong.

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 8:21pm

Changing the subject won't get you around the fact that you pick and choose facts to support your conclusion rather than base your conclusion on all the facts, both convenient and inconvenient.  You don't understand how that makes you lose credibility, even more than having good opinions of movies we feel suck.

I'll let others handle your change of subject.  As for me, I will address this one, singular, gigantic flaw in how you form your opinion(s).

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by cvcjr13

If you didn't care so much about the Rotten Tomatoes rating, why are you quoting it?  If you're quoting it, why don't you care about who is doing the rating?

Selecting only the facts that are convenient to your argument while ignoring facts that contradict your argument causes people to suspect you are wrong.


You don't know that those who weren't screened the movie won't like the movie.

 



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 2:58am
Originally posted by cvcjr13

Changing the subject won't get you around the fact that you pick and choose facts to support your conclusion rather than base your conclusion on all the facts, both convenient and inconvenient. 

I never said such a thing. What you just said can be applied to what ded has done, not myself. That's why I said to read my post to ded.



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 3:12am

Think concepts, not words.

You did say exactly that when, on one hand, you started repeatedly pointing out the Rotten Tomatoes meter, yet on the other hand you ignored which 11 critics contributed the reviews behind that number, you ignored how tepid the praise was within those positive reviews, and you ignored how all other critics were denied a pre-screening of the movie.

So, yes you did "pick and choose facts to support your conclusion rather than base your conclusion on all the facts, both convenient and inconvenient."  No, you didn't say those words, but you still did it.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by cvcjr13

Changing the subject won't get you around the fact that you pick and choose facts to support your conclusion rather than base your conclusion on all the facts, both convenient and inconvenient. 

I never said such a thing. What you just said can be applied to what ded has done, not myself. That's why I said to read my post to ded.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 3:17am
Originally posted by cvcjr13

If you didn't care so much about the Rotten Tomatoes rating, why are you quoting it?

When did I say I didn't care? For some exceptions, I sometimes want to watch a movie that I don't care what critics or people say about the film.

If you're quoting it, why don't you care about who is doing the rating?

Irony...I've stated many posts above that if critics who gave positive reviews for this film but gave negative reviews for the other films listed on this site, you wouldn't bother saying something like, "Hey! This critic gave a positive review for G.I. Joe but gave a negative review for Meet the Spartans!"



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 3:23am
Originally posted by cvcjr13

Think concepts, not words.

You did say exactly that when, on one hand, you started repeatedly pointing out the Rotten Tomatoes meter, yet on the other hand you ignored which 11 critics contributed the reviews behind that number, you ignored how tepid the praise was within those positive reviews, and you ignored how all other critics were denied a pre-screening of the movie.

I said earlier that you hate critics when they don't agree with you but you love them when they agree with you. It's like Roger Ebert giving a positive review for "Pan's Labyrinth" and loving him and shouting, "ROGER EBERT GAVE PAN'S LABYRINTH 4 STARS!" However, when Roger Ebert gave a positive review to "Orphan," you will say something like, "He's been losing his head for the past several months. Why should I listen to him?" It's not as if you have never been guilty of what you're accusing me of right now.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 6:40am
Ok. Variety's review is up. It's positive. If you want a worthy critic, this is one.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 8:04am
I just saw a clip on Conan... So again, they're wearing super suits... which MAKES. NO. SENSE... And then they go to the Baroness, and she doesn't even have an accent?! Are you KIDDING ME?!

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 10:03am

For the most part, I neither love nor hate critics in specific or in general. If 85 out of 100 critics pan a particular movie, I'm going to have a strong inclination to believe it is something worthy of our attention here. And consequently, I'll make every effort to see it at some point. But if a particular critic happens to bag a movie I like, I don't hold grudges (I may offer specific criticisms on the review in question, however).

For example, you cited Roger Ebert. Over the years, I have admired his work, both as a film critic and social commentator. There have been instances, however, that I have strongly disagreed with him. One specific example: His review of Gods and Generals was so off base that to this day, I have strong doubts that he actually saw the movie. I have cited specific examples in another thread in the past where he made specific errors in the review that led to my suspicions. I won't bore the readers by recounting them here. Nonetheless, I suspect that most of the regulars on this board are on the same page when it comes to their evaluation of critics.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

 I said earlier that you hate critics when they don't agree with you but you love them when they agree with you. It's like Roger Ebert giving a positive review for "Pan's Labyrinth" and loving him and shouting, "ROGER EBERT GAVE PAN'S LABYRINTH 4 STARS!" However, when Roger Ebert gave a positive review to "Orphan," you will say something like, "He's been losing his head for the past several months. Why should I listen to him?" It's not as if you have never been guilty of what you're accusing me of right now.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 11:52am

I know the Tomatometer readings were questionable and all, but I believe reality is setting in for G.I. Joe.

With 26 reviews as of now, the score has dropped from its high of 91% to a score of 62%.  5 new positives and 9 new negatives.  Expect it to drop further.



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 11:57am

It's going to end up in the 50s-60s range, I think. I was just happy that it reached as high as the 90s. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: As has been endlessly established on this thread and elsewhere, the "90+ Approval Rating" for G.I. JOE was as bogus as an NRA-sponsored poll suggesting most Americans want automatic weapons available on every street -- It was achieved through a very clever, but blatantly suspect, method.

The http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gi_joe/ - numbers we're seeing now for JOE (currently in the low 40s range) are far more realistic ones -- though they, too, remain inflated by the ploy of pre-screening the film only for Comic-Con/Fan-Boy "critics"... 


 



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 07 2009 at 7:19am
Yeah, the 40s range is more likely, maybe even 30s or even along side "Trannies 2" in the 20s! But yeah, if the studios are so confident in this movie, then why, oh why, are they not prescreening it on the East and West Coasts, you know, where all the critics are based? Because the movie sucks, that's why!


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: August 07 2009 at 8:14am
Thank God it isn't getting royally trashed by critics... yet. It's 39%, which makes it better than Stephen Sommers' Van Helsing, which I just realized to be a piece of dog sh*t. I saw the trailer, and the dialogue doesn't seem so heavy-handed and littered with the god-awful stylings of Richard Roxburgh. And I got a nice laugh out of Duke and Ripcord's bi-play.

-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 07 2009 at 11:08am
It's... Pretty much gotten thrashed by the critics at this point. And it probably makes them a little bitter, even, when they aren't given a pre-screening. That probably worsens the review even worse.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 07 2009 at 1:23pm

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

It's... Pretty much gotten thrashed by the critics at this point. And it probably makes them a little bitter, even, when they aren't given a pre-screening. That probably worsens the review even worse.

Yes, when a movie is not being prescreened, it just makes the critics lick their lips as they get ready to explain why the studios made that decision. And they usally mention it within the first sentance of the review.



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 07 2009 at 4:27pm

You said you didn't care about the Rotten Tomatoes ratings right here.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I don't really care... 

It was in response to this reply I gave you:

Originally posted by cvcjr13

MWG, only 11 critics have weighed in with that 91% rating, none of them are among the Rotten Tomatoes top critics.  Only one gave a negative rating, Emmanuel Levy, who often gave good ratings to what most people would consider bad movies.  The current RT rating should not be seriously considered.

So, you go around saying "RT is 93%!  RT is 93%!", yet you don't care what goes behind that 93%.  And now it's 38%.  Are you going to go around saying "RT is 38%!  RT is 38%" now that RT is currently at 38%?  No, because you pick and choose only the facts that are convenient to you point and ignore the ones that are inconvient to your point.

So, in the end, you don't care what RT says or which critics make up its rating.  You really don't care about any facts.  You only care about your point. 

 



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 07 2009 at 4:34pm

When you say "you" down below, are you talking to me as a person?  I'm surprised if you know how I feel about Roger Ebert.  I wouldn't be surprised if you remembered how I felt about Prairie Miller.

To lay that out, if I agree with them, I agree with them, and if I don't agree with them, I don't agree with them, and if I disagree with them far more than I agree with them, then I don't hold them in very high regard. 

Like Prairie Miller.

So, if you're going to talk to me about my opinions about movie critics, you'd better size me up by looking at what I've said about movie critics.  I offer you Prairie Miller so you have a chance of making your point.  Look her up.

Of course, none of what you said below excuses the fact that you pick and choose facts that are convenient to your argument while ignoring facts that are inconvient and often disprove your argument.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by cvcjr13

Think concepts, not words.

You did say exactly that when, on one hand, you started repeatedly pointing out the Rotten Tomatoes meter, yet on the other hand you ignored which 11 critics contributed the reviews behind that number, you ignored how tepid the praise was within those positive reviews, and you ignored how all other critics were denied a pre-screening of the movie.

I said earlier that you hate critics when they don't agree with you but you love them when they agree with you. It's like Roger Ebert giving a positive review for "Pan's Labyrinth" and loving him and shouting, "ROGER EBERT GAVE PAN'S LABYRINTH 4 STARS!" However, when Roger Ebert gave a positive review to "Orphan," you will say something like, "He's been losing his head for the past several months. Why should I listen to him?" It's not as if you have never been guilty of what you're accusing me of right now.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 07 2009 at 11:55pm
We've already been through this with MWG that just because ONE well-known critic says a movie is good or bad, that doesn't automatically mean that movie is good or bad. If many critics are panning a movie, that's a sign it's bad.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 08 2009 at 2:29am
Originally posted by cvcjr13

When you say "you" down below, are you talking to me as a person?  I'm surprised if you know how I feel about Roger Ebert.

I meant "you" as in person. I'm generalizing.

Of course, none of what you said below excuses the fact that you pick and choose facts that are convenient to your argument while ignoring facts that are inconvient and often disprove your argument.

*sigh*



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 08 2009 at 7:32am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Of course, none of what you said below excuses the fact that you pick and choose facts that are convenient to your argument while ignoring facts that are inconvient and often disprove your argument.
*sigh*

Great comeback, no way to counter that one.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 08 2009 at 7:35am
Now now... Let's not get petty here.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 08 2009 at 11:24am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Now now... Let's not get petty here.

I'm sorry, but a reply like "sigh" just proves whatever we say goes in one ear and out the other.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 08 2009 at 11:26am
Originally posted by Michaels

I'm sorry, but a reply like "sigh" just proves whatever we say goes in one ear and out the other.


*face palm*


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 08 2009 at 12:19pm

That was good, mwg.  That was really good.  But now could we do one more take, and this time, could you do the exact same thing, except HARDER.  MUCH HARDER.

Cue the swirling stars and twittering birds.  ACTION! . . .

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by Michaels

I'm sorry, but a reply like "sigh" just proves whatever we say goes in one ear and out the other.


*face palm*


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: August 08 2009 at 1:03pm
This is what Eric D. Snider had to say about the movie's early glowing
reviews: "A major summer tent-pole blockbuster action film, and it's being
hidden away. Paramount invited a handful of specific critics to screenings
last week, most of them writers for genre-oriented blogs and fan-driven
sites -- i.e., not stuffy old newspaper critics. Most of them came away
raving about the movie, which either means Paramount did a good job
selecting the right type of people to show it to, or it's actually a good movie.
We'll see."

Now that we know it's not the latter, I think it's safe to say that this will be
comparable to the thunderingly mediocre tripe that was Fantastic Four


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 08 2009 at 2:20pm
Ooooh.. Comparisons to Fantastic Four always resonate with this guy... Man that movie sucked.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: kelemenmarc
Date Posted: August 18 2009 at 3:50pm
For your RAZZIE Consideration:

Worst Picture
Worst Director:
Stephen Sommers
Worst Screenplay:
Stuart Beattie & David Elliot



-------------
FYC:
Worst Movie: The Bounty Hunter
Worst Actor: Johnny Depp (Alice in Wonderland / The Tourist)


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 24 2009 at 2:36pm

Funny video with more star power than the actual movie had. 

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/076041c13b/the-ballad-of-g-i-joe - http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/076041c13b/the-ballad-of-g- i-joe  

It's always sad when a 3 minute long Internet videos outshines a 90 minute long motion picture.  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, G.I. JOE: RISE OF COBRA was close to TWO HOURS. Maybe time flew 'cause you were laughing so hard at how bone-headed it was?? 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 25 2010 at 2:36pm
If there's one thing I like better when I talk about this movie compared with Revenge of the Fallen, I don't have to raise my Flame Shield when I say badly of The Rise of Cobra. I wanted to see this get nominated for Worst Screenplay, but I don't mind if the nomination's for some other category. I had a gut feeling this would fail when I saw the trailer way back in the spring.

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 25 2010 at 6:00pm
Sadly, there is no "Helping to Make CGI Go Backwards In Progress" Award. Because if there was, this movie would "win" it hands down ... and "Sound Of Thunder" before it.

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Joe Collector
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 8:55pm
Yeah my comment is late but me and my friend need to talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room. He don't follow movie critiques much so don't want to make an account here I will post his comment at the end in quotes. GI Joe Rise of Cobra wasn't just a bad GI Joe movie it was a bad movie all together, I was very disappointed as a Joe collector and even if I weren't a collector I would still want those 2 hours of my life back, it is more of the same big budget hollywood nothing. Now don't jump the gun on this, I'm a white boy and my friend who's mom is black and he identifies as black, had to explain this to me because the guy is waaaay smarter than me. But he explained it great and I agree. Oh and Roadblock is great but NOT the best character! ;)

"Take a line of toys/cartoons/comics with a lot of character, soul and dignity, by far the most ethnically diverse cartoon of its day, way ahead of its time. Take this and strip down all the good moral and social messages until you have a skeleton composed of a few recognizable character names, then build upon it a thin skin of meaningless Hollywood fluff/drivel, add to it the standard condescending racist flair of a black man aspiring to be more than he is, give it a musculature of countless millions of dollars in CGI effects, and there you have the Paramount creation "GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra". Furthermore, overlook an original, powerful black character like Roadblock(my personal favorite), take an historically white character, Ripcord in this instance, give him the leading white character's skin tone as well as his girlfriend(Scarlett had a thing for Duke from the very foundations of the GI Joe universe). Never mind that this would've been a perfect opportunity to bring Roadblock to live action front stage, never mind that this would've been an excellent opportunity to introduce a new black female character(While ethnically diverse, the Joe Universe is lacking in this department), never mind that it is increasingly racist and condescending when Hollywood throws this transparent patronizing formula awash with racial platitudes at us every chance they get, never mind these things because Hollywood will shove down all our throats their social and ethnic engineering ideologies whether we all like it or not. There are many things I despise about Rise of Cobra, but the racism is by far the most irritating. There is NOTHING WRONG with being attracted to your own ethnicity! There is also certainly nothing wrong with being attracted to a different ethnicity but this decision is the individual's NOT Hollywood's! Practically EVERY time they pull this stunt it comes off as so fake and patronizing, TELL me with a straight face the Scarlett/Ripcord kiss when he got into the Night Raven wasn't incredibly fake and patronizing, go on! By all means review this.

Look, we stand on our OWN, we are highly articulate and intelligent sovereign human beings, we do NOT need your platitudes, and most of us(of EVERY ethnicity!) ASPIRE to marry within our own ethnic group thankyouverymuch. I'm sick of mentally 'facepalming' and looking around the audience out of the corners of my eyes every other time I go to one of these hundred+ million dollar modern Hollywood train wrecks that pass for movies. Snake Eyes is the only positive portrayal in this entire movie which could be considered true to the spirit of the original."


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 13 2010 at 8:16pm
From the Egyptian desert to deep below the polar ice caps, the elite G.I. JOE team uses the latest in next-generation spy and military equipment to fight the corrupt arms dealer Destro and the growing threat of the mysterious Cobra organization to prevent them from plunging the world into chaos. --© Paramount

G.I. JOE is a mindless popcorn flick meant to entertain. No more. No less. The quicker you get that through your head, the more you'll be entertained from the film. And this is the reason why I think G.I. JOE succeeds. It's dumb and stupid, sure, but, hell, it's entertaining from beginning to end that nothing else matters.

Saying that, however, there is actually some thought put into the plot, although it's the usual "evil man wanting to take over the world." I like the idea of nanobots, which is blatantly reminiscent of the idea used in the remake of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. The action sequences are, you guessed it, filled with an average of about 127 explosions each. That's just a guestimation, though because there were too many to count. They were also well done, especially the Paris sequence, which you might have seen in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty fantastic.

Channing Tatum is in his 17th time (again, just a guestimation) playing someone in the military and he's pretty convincing at it. Marlon Wayans's character is more of a hit or miss. I laughed at some of his jokes while others failed. Sienna Miller is also surprisingly good in her role, sporting an extremely realistic American accent. I also liked Rachel Nichols, whom I think is an underrated actress.

However, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the one who I want to put the spotlight on, not because he was great, but because he was absolutely horrible in his role. What the hell. I highly respect him as an actor but seeing him in this film was an embarrassment. He plays the villain who speaks in a cartoonish deep "dark" voice. Every line he spews out as that character is utterly and unintentionally hilarious. This is probably the main point why I didn't enjoy the film as much as I should have.

Another problem I had with the film was the origin story between the characters of Storm Shadow and Snakes Eyes mostly dealing with the use of English (you'll understand the problem once you see it). But other than those flaws, I was still entertained by the film's persistent intent at entertaining the audience. The action sequences are utterly ridiculous but so much fun to watch. Watch this film if, and only if, you go in with the right expectations. 6/10


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 13 2010 at 8:24pm

6 ... out of 10 ... for "GI Joe". You lost me at "The CGI is also pretty fantastic". The CGI looked on par with a 16-bit video game! But I agree with your last sentance about watching with the right expectations ... and those should be ROCK BOTTOM. Seriosuly, do you have any standards what so ever when it comes to movies? Is a movie really "good" just because it's mindlessly entertaining?



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 14 2010 at 10:56am
Entertaining doesn't always equal good. For example, something so laughable can be entertaining. But I do know one thing: Entertaining can always equal to entertaining.

On another note, I'm surprised Joseph Gordon-Levitt didn't get nominated for Worst Supporting Actor. I truly thought he was horrible in the film. Also, I thought Sienna Miller was pretty good, one of the few people who gave a pretty convincing performance in the film.


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 14 2010 at 11:17am
Yes, but you seem to give high marks to movies just for being entertaining. Frankly, I think the last time you did a review I agreed with was "2012," when you gave 2 different grades, one for the movie as a whole, and one for how entertaining it was...  

Oh wait, that was cvcjr!  


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 17 2011 at 2:03pm
I just saw it and gave it 1/10(Could've been 0).Review coming soon.

I can't believe there'll be a sequel.At least they'll hire new people off screen.
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Marlon Wayans has talent. He just doesn't tend to act in movies that require it.
Clap


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: April 17 2011 at 7:24pm
Apparantly, the sequel is being directed by Jon M. Chu, the same guy who directed the Justin Bieber movie. To be fair to Chu, he didn't direct the worst non-bat-nipples movie ever like Stephen Sommers.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 17 2011 at 8:17pm
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Apparantly, the sequel is being directed by Jon M. Chu, the same guy who directed the Justin Bieber movie. To be fair to Chu, he didn't direct the worst non-bat-nipples movie ever like Stephen Sommers.
No, he only directed the worst "must cash in on this 16 year old's 15 minutes of fame before it's too late" movie.

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: April 18 2011 at 8:34am
He also directed the STEP UP sequels,each being better than the previous one.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 18 2011 at 11:27am
Originally posted by Vits

He also directed the STEP UP sequels,each being better than the previous one.
Now I'm afraid that he will make "GI Joe: The Musical"!
 
http://youtu.be/DN034sBeF4c - http://youtu.be/DN034sBeF4c
 
^That could become a reality now!^


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: April 18 2011 at 3:02pm
Originally posted by Michaels

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Apparantly, the sequel is being directed by Jon M. Chu, the same guy who directed the Justin Bieber movie. To be fair to Chu, he didn't direct the worst non-bat-nipples movie ever like Stephen Sommers.
No, he only directed the worst "must cash in on this 16 year old's 15 minutes of fame before it's too late" movie.
I meant Van Helsing, not G.I. Joe. G.I. Joe sucked, but it didn't even touch the suckitude that was Van Helsing. Compared to that, G.I. Joe is freaking Saving Private Ryan!!!

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: April 18 2011 at 5:32pm
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

I meant Van Helsing, not G.I. Joe. G.I. Joe sucked, but it didn't even touch the suckitude that was Van Helsing. Compared to that, G.I. Joe is freaking Saving Private Ryan!!!
Oh yes, THAT one. Yeah, point taken.

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)



Print Page | Close Window